Super-diversity and its implications
Steven Vertovec
Abstract
Diversity in Britain is not what it used to be. Some thirty years of
government policies, social service practices and public perceptions have
been framed by a particular understanding of immigration and multicultural
diversity. That is, Britain’s immigrant and ethnic minority
population has conventionally been characterized by large, well-organized
African-Caribbean and South Asian communities of citizens originally
from Commonwealth countries or formerly colonial territories. Policy
frameworks and public understanding Á and, indeed, many areas of social
science Á have not caught up with recently emergent demographic and
social patterns. Britain can now be characterized by ‘super-diversity,’ a
notion intended to underline a level and kind of complexity surpassing
anything the country has previously experienced. Such a condition is
distinguished by a dynamic interplay of variables among an increased
number of new, small and scattered, multiple-origin, transnationally
connected, socio-economically differentiated and legally stratified immigrantswho
have arrived over the last decade. Outlined here, new patterns of
super-diversity pose significant challenges for both policy and research.
Keywords: Diversity; multiculturalism; immigration; United Kingdom; London.
At a Trafalgar Square vigil for the victims of the 7 July 2005 terrorist
attacks Á in which victims included migrants from more than twenty
countries and alleged perpetrators from a further six Á Mayor Ken
Livingstone stated that in London ‘you see the world gathered in one
city, living in harmony, as an example to all’ (in Freedland 2005). The
‘world in one city’ idea was also the title of a special section in the
Guardian newspaper celebrating ‘the most cosmopolitan place on
earth’ where ‘Never have so many different kinds of people tried living
together in the same place before’ (Benedictus and Godwin 2005, p. 2).
The ‘world in one city’ was the title of the Greater London Authority’s
analysis of the 2001 Census (GLA 2005a), too, which examined the
presence of people from 179 nations within the capital. The successful
Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 30 No. 6 November 2007 pp. 1024Á1054
# 2007 Taylor & Francis
ISSN 0141-9870 print/1466-4356 online
DOI: 10.1080/01419870701599465
London bid to host the 2012 Olympics also used the ‘world in one city’
slogan, suggesting that ‘In 2012, our multicultural diversity will mean
every competing nation in the Games will find local supporters as
enthusiastic as back home’ (www.london2012.org/en/city/onecity).
To be sure, the ethnic and country of origin diversity of London is
remarkable. Such diversity is manifesting in other parts of the country as
well. However, observing ethnicity or country of origin (the two often,
and confusingly, being used interchangeably) provides a misleading,
one-dimensional appreciation of contemporary diversity. Over the past
ten years, the nature of immigration to Britain has brought with it a
transformative ‘diversification of diversity’ (cf. Hollinger 1995, Martiniello
2004) not just in terms of bringing more ethnicities and countries
oforigin, but alsowith respect to a multiplication of significant variables
that affect where, how and with whom people live.
In the last decade the proliferation and mutually conditioning
effects of additional variables shows that it is not enough to see
diversity only in terms of ethnicity, as is regularly the case both in
social science and the wider public sphere. Such additional variables
include differential immigration statuses and their concomitant
entitlements and restrictions of rights, divergent labour market
experiences, discrete gender and age profiles, patterns of spatial
distribution, and mixed local area responses by service providers and
residents. Rarely are these factors described side by side. The interplay
of these factors is what is meant here, in summary fashion, by the
notion of ‘super-diversity’.
By invoking ‘super-diversity’ I wish, firstly, to underscore the fact
that in addition to more people now migrating from more places,
significant new conjunctions and interactions of variables have arisen
through patterns of immigration to the UK over the past decade; their
outcomes surpass the ways Á in public discourse, policy debates and
academic literature Á that we usually understand diversity in Britain.
Secondly, then, the article serves as a call, or at least reminder, to social
scientists and policy-makers to take more sufficient account of the
conjunction of ethnicity with a range of other variables when
considering the nature of various ‘communities’, their composition,
trajectories, interactions and public service needs.
Much of the material and data in this article are certainly not new or
unknown to specialists in the field; what is hopefully of value, however,
is its assemblage and juxtaposition by way of re-assessing how
diversity is conventionally conceived. My view draws upon several
previous approaches to diversity, particularly concerning: multi-ethnic
arenas of interaction (importantly Lamphere 1992 and Sanjek 1998),
hypersegregation or the simultaneous impact of numerous dimensions
of ethnic residential concentration (Massey and Denton 1989),
minorities’ ‘multilayered experience’ within unequal power structures
Super-diversity & its implications 1025
and social locations (Harzig and Juteau 2003), and notions of
pluralism that take into account differential rights and modes of
incorporation among ethnic groups (Kuper and Smith 1969). I have
also been particularly influenced by ideas around cultural complexity
as considered by Fredrik Barth (1989, 1993) and Ulf Hannerz (1992),
particularly their thinking about modes of cultural confluence, the
coexistence of multiple historical streams and the ways individuals in
complex settings relate to each other from different vantage points.
Again, the variables of super-diversity themselves are not new, nor
are many of their correlations. But, as described in this article, it is the
emergence of their scale, historical and policy-produced multiple
configuration and mutual conditioning that now calls for conceptual
distinction. ‘Super-diversity’ is proposed as a summary term. Whatever
we choose to call it, there is much to be gained by a multidimensional
perspective on diversity, both in terms of moving beyond
‘the ethnic group as either the unit of analysis or sole object of study’
(Glick Schiller et al. 2006, p. 613) and by appreciating the coalescence
of factors which condition people’s lives.
Noting similar changes concerning urban social, geographic and
economic conditions in North American cities and patterns of
diversification among ethnic groups themselves, Eric Fong and Kumiko
Shibuya (2005, p. 286) suggest that ‘theories developed in the past may
have only limited application in the studyof multigroup relations today’.
The present article follows a similar line. In the first part avarietyof data
is presented indicating the emergence of super-diversity (especially
pointing to developments in London, but emphasizing that these
variables, dimensions and dynamics hold proportionately in many
other parts of the UK too); this is followed by sections suggesting some
implications that super-diversity may have for social scientific theory
and method alongside challenges it poses for particular areas of public
policy formation and delivery.
Diversity in Britain
Diversity is endemic to Britain, of course. Peter Ackroyd’s (2000)
monumental London: The Biography describes the long history of a city
of assorted immigrants. Roman Londinium was full of administrators,
traders, soldiers and slaves from Gaul, Greece, Germany, Italy and
North Africa. ‘By the tenth century,’ Ackroyd (Ibid., p. 702) writes, ‘the
city was populated by Cymric Brythons and Belgae, by remnants of the
Gaulish legions, by East Saxons and Mercians, by Danes, Norwegians
and Swedes, by Franks and Jutes and Angles, all mingled and mingling
together to form a distinct tribe of ‘‘Londoners’’.’
In the late twelfth century locals throughout Britain complained
that all sorts of foreigners were practising their own customs, and by
1026 Steven Vertovec
the early sixteenth century such intolerance saw riots in which shops
and homes of foreigners were burnt. In the middle of the eighteenth
century diversity fuelled a struggle between people with ‘culturally
cosmopolitan’ outlooks and those with populist xenophobic attitudes
(Statt 1995). Nineteenth-century poets like Wordsworth described
London’s heterogeneity of peoples, while in an 1880 book The
Huguenots, Samuel Smiles called London ‘one of the most composite
populations to be found in the world’ (in Holmes 1997, p. 10). Indeed,
as Michael Keith (2005, pp. 49Á50) notes, ‘There is not a point in the
history of London when cultural differences have not played a
significant role in shaping the life of the city.’
Irish in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and Jews from
throughout eastern Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries comprised significant immigrant influxes. Yet it was the postwar
large-scale immigration of African-Caribbean and South Asian
(i.e. non-White) peoples which particularly prompted a set of changes
in public policy. British policy-makers responded with various
strategies for a kind of diversity management strategy that came to
be called multiculturalism.
In this way most of the discourse, policy and public understanding of
migration and multiculturalism evident in Britain over the past thirty
years has been based on the experience of people who arrived between
the 1950s and 1970s from Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana and other places
in the West Indies alongside those from India, Pakistan and what is now
Bangladesh. These were major inflows from former British colonies,
with people subject to initial rights of entry that were gradually
restricted during the 1960s and early 1970s until only families of settled
migrants could enter. Citizenship and all the civil, political and social
rights associated with it were gained by most under post-colonial
arrangements (Hansen and Weil 2001). Large and eventually wellorganized
communities were formed, particularly through the establishment
of community associations and places of worship.
Multicultural policies have had as their overall goal the promotion
of tolerance and respect for collective identities. This has been
undertaken through supporting community associations and their
cultural activities, monitoring diversity in the workplace, encouraging
positive images in the media and other public spaces, and modifying
public services (including education, health, policing and courts) in
order to accommodate culture-based differences of value, language
and social practice. While developed from the 1960s onwards, most of
these policies and goals still obtain today. Meanwhile, multiculturalism
continues to be conceived of mainly in terms of the African-Caribbean
and South Asian communities of British citizens.
New, smaller, less organized, legally differentiated and non-citizen
immigrant groups have hardly gained attention or a place on the public
Super-diversity & its implications 1027
agenda (cf. Kofman 1998). Yet it is the growth of exactly these sorts of
groups that has in recent years radically transformed the social
landscape in Britain. The time has come to re-evaluate Á in social
scientific study aswell as policy Á the nature of diversity in Britain today.
New immigrants and the emergence of super-diversity
Over the past ten to fifteen years, immigration, and consequently the
nature of diversity, in the UK has changed dramatically. Since the early
1990s there has been a marked rise in net immigration and a
diversification of countries of origin. This shift has coincided with no
less than six Parliamentary measures: the Asylum and Immigration
Acts of 1993, 1996, 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
2002, the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 and the Immigration,
Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005. Throughout this time there has been
a proliferation of migration channels and immigrant legal statuses. In
addition, this decade was a time when numerous conflicts were taking
place around the world leading to a significant expansion in the
numbers of those seeking asylum. The various flows and channels
have been characterized as ‘the new migration’ and the people involved
as ‘the new immigrants’ (see Berkeley et al. 2005; Kyambi 2005;
Robinson and Reeve 2005). Multiple dimensions of differentiation
characterize the emergent social patterns and conditions.
Net inflows
Prior to the early 1990s, the UK was characterized by net outflows of
people; since 1994 it has been marked by net inflows. Annual net
inflows of immigrants to Britain peaked at 171,000 in 2000, declined to
151,000 by 2003 then rose markedly to 222,600 in 2004 (Office for
National Statistics, www.statisics.gov.uk). In 2004 there were an
estimated 2,857,000 foreigners (foreign-born and without UK citizenship)
living in the UK, comprising some 4.9 per cent of the total
population of 58,233,000 (Salt 2004). This number represented an
increase of some 857,000 or over 40 per cent since 1993. There have
been substantial further increases since eight new states acceded to the
European Union in 2004 (see below).
There are many simultaneous reasons for the increased net inflows.
One set of reasons surrounds Britain’s high economic performance
(including low unemployment and job shortages in some sectors)
coupled with growing inequalities in many developing and middleincome
countries (Hatton 2003). Much of the increase during the 1990s
was within the category of asylum-seekers: while there have been many
accusations that a high proportion of these are ‘bogus’ or ‘really
economic migrants’, the increase in asylum-seekers over the past ten
1028 Steven Vertovec
years has been demonstrated to be directly linked with forced migration
factors and conflict situations in source countries during this time
(Castles et al. 2003). Even before EU accession, migration flows from
Eastern Europe also increased since the opening of borders following
the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (see Kaczmarczyk and Oko´lski 2005).
Countries of origin
One of the most noteworthy features of ‘the new migration’ is the
multiplicity of immigrants’ countries of origin. Moreover, most of this
new and diverse range of origins relates to places which have no
specific historical Á particularly, colonial Á links with Britain.
In the 1950s and 1960s almost all immigrants came from colonies or
Commonwealth countries (again, mostly in the Caribbean and South
Asia). By the early 1970s most newcomers were arriving as dependants
of the newly settled migrants. The decades since then have seen fairly
dramatic change. Alongside relatively constant inflows of returning
British people, in 1971 people from ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Commonwealth
countries accounted for 30 per cent and 32 per cent of inflow; by 2002
these proportions were 17 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. EU
citizens represented 10 per cent of newcomers in 1971, rising to 17 per
cent in 2002; however, those in a broad ‘Middle East and Other’
category have gone from 16 per cent in 1971 to 40 per cent in 2002
(National Statistics Online). Since the beginning of the 1990s alone,
the diversity of immigrants’ places of origin has been growing
considerably (see Figure 1).
Britain is nowhome Á temporary, permanent orone among many Á to
people from practically every country in the world. As Table 1 suggests,
various waves of immigrants from rich, middle income and poor
countries have accumulated. All the groups, as well as many individuals
within these, have diverse migration experiences in the UK Á some over
the last decade, others over generations, still others over more than a
century. With regard to this dimension of super-diversity, we should
consider how the assorted origins and experiences of migrants condition
social relations with non-migrant Britons and with each other.
In London alone there are people from some 179 countries. Many
represent just a handful of people, but there are populations
numbering over 10,000 respectively from each of no less than fortytwo
countries; there are populations of over 5,000 from a further
twelve countries (GLA 2005a). Reflecting trends in Britain as a whole,
23 per cent of foreign-born people came to London before 1970, 32 per
cent between 1970Á1990 and 45 per cent since 1990. The 25 largest
such populations reflect a wide range of countries, from rich to poor,
peaceful to conflict-ridden, European to African and Asian (Table 2).
Super-diversity & its implications 1029
Overall 30 per cent of London’s migrants are from high income
countries and 70 per cent are from developing countries (GLA 2005b).
Once more, the above figures for both the UK and London will by
now have changed considerably, not least due to the influx of eastern
Europeans both before and after EU accession in May 2004.
Foreign-origin populations in London are widespread and unevenly
distributed (see Kyambi 2005). The borough of Brent has the highest
percentage of its 2001 population born outside the EU, with 38.2 per
cent (100,543 people), followed by Newham with 35.6 per cent (86,858
people), Westminster with 32.4 per cent (58,770 people) and Ealing
with 31 per cent (93,169 people) (see www.statistics.gov.uk). Within
each such area, the diversity of origins is staggering, as depicted by
way of example in Figure 2 with reference to Newham.
Such a relatively new and high proportion of immigrants characterizes
many places in the UK, but London most. Of the local
authorities with the highest percentage of population who are non-UK
born, the top twenty-two are all London boroughs, from the first,
Brent with 46.5 per cent of its 263,463 population, to the twentysecond,
Redbridge with 24.2 per cent of its 238,634 population.
However, high proportions of foreign-born Á with all the accompanying
dimensions of diversity that go with them Á are found
throughout the UK (see especially Kyambi 2005). In these terms,
outside of London it is Slough that has the highest proportion,
nationally ranked as twenty-third among local authorities, with 22.3
per cent of its 119,072 population counted as foreign-born. Leicester
Figure 1. Net international migration to Britain by citizenship
- 100.0
- 50.0
+ 0.0
+ 50.0
+ 100.0
+ 150.0
+ 200.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
British European Union Old Commonw.
New Common. Other foreign Total
Source: statistics.gov.uk
1030 Steven Vertovec
and Forest Heath are ranked twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth (each
with 23 per cent of their respective populations of 279,925 and 55,523),
Luton twenty-seventh (19.6 per cent of 184,369) and Oxford twentyninth
(19.3 per cent of 134,250); intervening ranks are again London
local authorities (2001 Census). Among the foreign-born, regions of
origin are quite varyingly distributed. By way of example, Figure 3
indicates such differential patterns of distribution in four cities of
Britain.
While pointing to important indicators of diversity, country of
origin data itself, however, may mask more significant forms of
differentiation than it reveals. Within any particular population from a
given country, there will be important distinctions with reference to
ethnicity, religious affiliation and practice, regional and local identities
in places of origin, kinship, clan or tribal affiliation, political parties
and movements, and other criteria of collective belonging. Linguistic
Table 1. Foreign nationals living in the UK, largest twenty-five groups, 2004
Rank Nationality Number in UK Per cent
1 Ireland 368000 12.9
2 India 171000 6.0
3 USA 133000 4.7
4 Italy 121000 4.2
5 Germany 96000 3.4
6 France 95000 3.3
7 South Africa 92000 3.2
8 Pakistan 86000 3.0
9 Portugal 83000 2.9
10 Australia 80000 2.8
11 Zimbabwe 73000 2.5
12 Bangladesh 69000 2.4
13 Somalia 60000 2.1
14 Former Yugoslavia 54000 1.9
15 Philippines 52000 1.8
16 Turkey 51000 1.8
17 Netherlands 48000 1.7
18 Poland 48000 1.7
19 Jamaica 45000 1.6
20 Former USSR 44000 1.5
21 Nigeria 43000 1.5
22 Spain 40000 1.4
23 Greece 37000 1.3
24 Canada 37000 1.3
25 Iran 36000 1.3
All foreign nationals 2,857,000 100
Source: Salt 2004
Super-diversity & its implications 1031
differentiation, for instance, represents one such important social
marker which may lie within one or more country of origin categories.
Languages
The growth of multilingualism has been recognized and engaged in
various ways by both social scientists and policy-makers, although the
latter have often arguably failed to respond in positive or adequate ways
(Rampton et al. 1997). Still, it is now often proclaimed with pride (for
instance in the city’s successful 2012 Olympic bid) that 300 languages are
spoken in London. This figure is based on a survey of no less than
896,743 London schoolchildren concerning which language(s) they
speak at home (Baker and Mohieldeen 2000). Despite some methodological
flaws, this remarkable data source provides an important look
into a much under-studied field of diversity in the UK. The study does
not take account of languages among groups with few children in
schools (for instance because of a high numberof young, single migrants
Table 2. Number of People living in London by Country of Birth outside the
UK, largest twenty-five groups, 2001
Rank Country of Birth Number
1 India 172,162
2 Republic of Ireland 157,285
3 Bangladesh 84,565
4 Jamaica 80,319
5 Nigeria 68,907
6 Pakistan 66,658
7 Kenya 66,311
8 Sri Lanka 49,932
9 Ghana 46,513
10 Cyprus 45,888
11 South Africa 45,506
12 U.S.A. 44,622
13 Australia 41,488
14 Germany 39,818
15 Turkey 39,128
16 Italy 38,694
17 France 38,130
18 Somalia 33,831
19 Uganda 32,082
20 New Zealand 27,494
21 Hong Kong 23,328
22 Spain 22,473
23 Poland 22,224
24 Portugal 21,720
25 Iran 20,398
Source: GLA 2005a
1032 Steven Vertovec
in a particular group), which would represent ones like Polish, Czech,
Hungarian and other east European languages. Nevertheless, findings
like those in Table 3 indicate sometimes surprisingly sizeable numbers
speaking particular languages within a divergent range.
The data also show some interesting local configurations. There are
predictable groupings of South Asian languages in places of renowned
Asian settlement like Harrow, where the top three non-English
languages are Gujarati, Hindi/Urdu and Punjabi. Other places show
fascinating conjunctions, such as in Haringey where Turkish is
commonly spoken alongside Akan and Somali, in Lambeth where
Yoruba speakers mingle with speakers of Portuguese and Spanish, and
in Merton where English Creole is common next to Cantonese and
French (Baker and Mohieldeen 2000). In Tower Hamlets, where
British Bangladeshis are highly concentrated, ‘the demand for Eastern
European language services collectively now exceeds that for Sylheti
translation’ (Keith 2005, p. 177).
School districts, health services and local authorities are among
those institutions which have to meet the challenges of growing
linguistic complexity. Many new initiatives have arisen for this
purpose. For example, the Language Shop provides a comprehensive
Figure 2. Newham (total; population 243,898) by country/region of birth
Source: 2001 Census
Super-diversity & its implications 1033
translation and interpretation service in more than 100 languages to
Newham Council and its partners, such as community groups and
neighbouring councils, while Language Line provides telephone or
in-person translations in 150 languages to health authorities and other
public sector clients.
Religions
The religious diversity that migrants have brought to Britain is well
documented and is not possible to detail here (see, for instance,
Parsons 1994, Peach 2005 as well as National Statistics Online). On the
whole we can say that among immigrants to Britain, Christianity is the
main religion for people born in all continents except Asia; Asia-born
people in the UK are more likely to be Muslim than any other religion,
although of course Indians include a majority of Hindus and a
significant number of Sikhs. For many, religions tend to be broadly
equated with countries of origin Á Irish and Jamaicans are mostly
Christian, Bangladeshis mostly Muslim and so forth Á but even so
these categories often miss important variations in devotional traditions
within each of the world religions.
Taking Islam as example, it is often pointed out that there are
several traditions within the faith as practised by South Asians in the
Figure 3. Local authorities by non-UK region of birth (with total foreign-born
percent of local population)
Source: 2001 Census
1034 Steven Vertovec
UK (Deobandi, Tablighi, Barelvi, Sufi orders and more; see Lewis
2002). Such variations are multiplied many times when we consider the
breadth of origins among Muslims from around the world who now
live in Britain (such as Nigerians, Somalis, Bosnians, Afghans, Iraqis
and Malaysians). In London Muslims are the most heterogeneous
body of believers in terms of ethnicity and country of origin, with the
largest group (Bangladeshis) making up only 23.5 per cent. ‘London’s
Muslim population of 607,083 people is probably the most diverse
anywhere in the world, besides Mecca’ (Guardian 21 January 2005).
Socio-cultural axes of differentiation such as country of origin,
ethnicity, language and religion are of course significant in conditioning
immigrants’ identities, patterns of interaction and Á often through
social networks determined by such axes Á their access to jobs,
housing, services and more. However, immigrants’ channels of
migration and the myriad legal statuses which arise from them are
often just as, or even more, crucial to: how people group themselves
and where people live, how long they can stay, how much autonomy
they have (versus control by an employer, for instance), whether their
families can join them, what kind of livelihood they can undertake and
maintain, and to what extent they can make use of public services and
resources (including schools, health, training, benefits and other
‘recourse to public funds’). Therefore such channels and statuses,
Table 3. Estimated number of speakers of top 20 languages in London, 2000
Rank Language name Number
1 English 5636500
2 Panjabi 155700
3 Gujarati 149600
4 Hindi/Urdu 136500
5 Bengali & Sylheti 136300
6 Turkish 73900
7 Arabic 53900
8 English Creole 50700
9 Cantonese 47900
10 Yoruba 47600
11 Greek 31100
12 Portuguese 29400
13 French 27600
14 Akan (Twi & Fante) 27500
15 Spanish 26700
16 Somali 22343
17 Tamil 19200
18 Vietnamese 16800
19 Farsi 16200
20 Italian 12300
Source: Storkey 2000
Super-diversity & its implications 1035
along with the rights and restrictions attached to them (Morris 2002),
comprise an additional, indeed, fundamental, dimension of today’s
patterns and dynamics of super-diversity.
Migration channels and immigration statuses
Coinciding with the increasing influx of immigrants to the UK in the
1990s, there has been an expansion in the number and kind of
migration channels and immigration statuses. Each carries quite
specific and legally enforceable entitlements, controls, conditions and
limitations (see JCWI 2004). The following section outlines many of
the key channels and statuses, particularly with regard to how they
have shaped current patterns of super-diversity in the UK.
Workers. Between 1993 and 2003 the number of foreign workers in
the UK rose no less than 62 per cent to 1,396,000 (Sriskandarajah
et al. 2004). This large-scale increase in workers includes people who
have come under numerous categories and quota systems (see Clarke
and Salt 2003, Salt 2004, Kofman et al. 2005). These have included:
foreign nationals who do not need a visa or permit to work in the UK
(mainly members of the European Economic Area, including members
of the eight new EU accession states who can travel to the UK freely,
but should register with government offices if they find employment;
by mid-2006 there were some 427,000 applications under this Worker
Registration Scheme); work permit holders (whose employers obtained
the permits); workers on special schemes (especially the Seasonal
Agricultural Workers’ Scheme and the Sector Based Scheme directed
mainly at hotels, catering and food processing industries); highly
skilled migrants (from over 50 countries, working in finance, business
management, information technology and medical services); working
holidaymakers (from more than 90 per cent of ‘Old Commonwealth’
countries such as New Zealand and Australia); and special visa
holders (importantly including domestic workers, au pairs, volunteers
and religious instructors).
Students. The number of foreign students entering the UK recently
peaked at 369,000 in 2002 before reducing to 319,000 in 2003. Non-EU
students accounted for some 38 per cent of all full-time higher degree
students in 2003 (Kofman et al. 2005, p. 20); they numbered over
210,000 in 2004. In this year 47,700 Chinese students came to Britain,
marking a seventeen-fold increase from the 2,800 Chinese students in
the UK in 1998. The number of Indian students has grown from under
3,000 in 1998 to nearly 15,000 in 2004. The third largest sender is the
USA with over 13,000 students in 2004.
Spouses and family members. This is an extremely important
immigration category, not least since ‘family migration has emerged
as the single most enduring, though also restricted, basis for entry of
1036 Steven Vertovec
migrants to the UK’ (Kofman et al. 2005, p. 22). The number of
migrating spouses and family members coming to the UK more than
doubled between 1993Á2003. Furthermore this is a particularly
feminised channel of migration compared with others; for instance,
of the 95,000 grants of settlement to spouses and dependants in 2004,
20.6 per cent were made for husbands, 40 per cent for wives and 28.8
per cent children. Their geographical provenance varied significantly,
however: the Indian sub-continent was origin to 36 per cent of
husbands, 28 per cent of wives and 15 per cent of children; the rest of
Asia brought 8 per cent of husbands, 21 per cent of wives and 18 per
cent of children, while from Africa there came 24 per cent of husbands,
17 per cent of wives and 42 per cent of children (Salt 2004). Not all
have come under the same conditions: within the spouses and family
migrant category Kofman (2004) distinguishes a number of types,
including family reunification migration (bringing members of immediate
family), family formation migration (bringing marriage
partners from country of origin), marriage migration (bringing
partners met while abroad) and family migration (when all members
migrate simultaneously).
Asylum-seekers and refugees. Throughout the 1990s the number of
asylum applications rose considerably in the UK and indeed throughout
Europe. Applications (including dependants) in Britain rose from
28,000 in 1993 to a peakof 103,100 in 2002; these amounted respectively
to 15.6 per cent and 26.5 per cent of all non-British immigration
(179,200 in 1993 and 418,200 in 2002). Applications have since declined
significantly: in 2003 the number of asylum applications declined to
60,045 (which is 14.7 per cent of 406,800 total non-British immigrants;
Salt 2004, p. 71). This too is a highly gendered channel of migration: in
2003 some 69 per cent were male. The provenance of asylum-seekers
represents a broad range: again in 2003 applications were received from
persons spanning over fifty nationalities, including 10 per cent Somali, 8
per cent Iraqi, 7 per cent Chinese, 7 per cent Zimbabwean, and 6 per cent
Iranian. However, numbers of asylum-seekers from various countries
have fluctuated much over the years (see Table 4).
Many asylum-seekers wait long periods for decisions, many are
rejected and leave the country, others are rejected and stay as irregular
migrants. It is estimated that some 28 per cent of asylum applicants are
granted asylum, extended leave to remain, humanitarian protection or
some other category allowing them to stay in the UK (Salt 2004).
Cumulatively there were some 289,100 refugees in UK by the end of
2004 (UNHCR 2005).
Irregular, illegal or undocumented migrants. This category, variously
termed, pertains to people whose presence is marked by clandestine
entry, entry by deceit, overstaying or breaking the terms of a visa. It is
not a black-and-white classification, however: Anderson and Ruhs
Super-diversity & its implications 1037
Table 4. Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom 1994Á2003, selected nationalities
Nationality 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Serbia-Montenegro n/a n/a 400 1865 7395 11465 6070 3230 2265 815
Turkey 2045 1820 1495 1445 2015 2850 3990 3695 2835 2390
Nigeria 4340 5825 2900 1480 1380 945 835 810 1125 1010
Somalia 1840 3465 1780 2730 4685 7495 5020 6420 6540 5090
Zimbabwe 55 105 130 60 80 230 1010 2140 7655 3295
Iran 520 615 585 585 745 1320 5610 3420 2630 2875
Iraq 550 930 965 1075 1295 1800 7475 6680 14570 4015
Afghanistan 325 580 675 1085 2395 3975 5555 8920 7205 2280
Sri Lanka 2350 2070 1340 1830 3505 5130 6395 5510 3130 705
All nationalities 32830 43965 29640 32500 46015 71160 80315 71025 84130 49405
Source: Salt 2004
1038StevenVertovec
(2005) discuss grey areas of ‘semi-compliance’ under which only some,
sometimes minor, conditions are violated.
As Pinkerton et al. (2004) describe, it is very difficult to reliably
estimate numbers within this category. In 2005 the Home Office
offered a ‘best guess’ number between 310,000 and 570,000 irregular
migrants in the UK. Without a regularisation exercise, learning the
breadth of undocumented migrants places of origin would be even
more difficult. In any case, their social and legal position is one of
almost total exclusion from rights and entitlements.
New citizens. A great many migrants become full citizens. During
the 1990s around 40,000 people became citizens each year. This
number has risen dramatically since 2000, with 2004 seeing a record
number of 140,795 granted British citizenship (Guardian 18 May
2005). According to Home Office estimates, 59 per cent of the foreignborn
population who have been in the UK more than five years Á the
minimal stay to become eligible Á have indeed become citizens.
In attempting to understand the nature and dynamics of diversity in
Britain, close attention must be paid to the stratified system of rights,
opportunities, constraints and partial-to-full memberships that coincide
with these and other immigrant categories (Morris 2002, 2004).
And as pointed out by Lisa Arai (2006, p. 10),
There is a complex range of different entitlements, even within one
migrant status category (e.g. overseas students), and a lack of
coherence or rationale to a system developed ad hoc over many
years, and which reflects competing pressures, such as whether to
provide access to a service because the individual needs it, or because
it is good for society (e.g. public health). Or whether to deny a service
in order to protect public funds, ensure that access does not prove an
attraction for unwanted migrants or to appease public opinion. This
means that neither service providers, advice-givers nor migrants
themselves are clear as to what services they might be entitled.
Moreover, Á denoting a key feature of super-diversity Á there may be
widely differing statuses within groups of the same ethnic or national
origin. For example, among Somalis in the UK Á and in any single
locality Á we will find British citizens, refugees, asylum-seekers, persons
granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants, and
people granted refugee status in another European country but who
subsequently moved to Britain. This fact underscores the point that
simple ethnicity-focused approaches to understanding and engaging
various minority ‘communities’ in Britain, as taken in many models and
policies within conventional multiculturalism, is inadequate and often
inappropriate for dealing with individual immigrants’ needs or understanding
their dynamics of inclusion or exclusion.
Super-diversity & its implications 1039
Immigration status is not just a crucial factor in determining an
individual’s relation to the state, its resources and legal system, the
labour market and other structures. It is an important catalyst in the
formation of social capital and a potential barrier to the formation of
cross-cutting socio-economic and ethnic ties.
Many immigration statuses set specific time limits on people’s stay in
Britain. Most integration policies and programmes, in turn, do not
apply to people with temporary status. Temporary workers, undocumented
migrants and asylum-seekers often only spend short periods of
time in given locations, either due to the search for workor relocation by
employers or authorities such as the National Asylum Support Service.
Short periods of duration may pose difficulties not just for them, but for
local institutions, such as schools (Ofsted 2003), to provide services.
In order to understand the nature and complexity of contemporary
super-diversity, we must examine how such a system of stratified rights
and conditions created by immigration channels and legal statuses
cross-cuts socio-cultural and socio-economic dimensions.
Gender
Over the past thirty years, more females than males migrated to the
UK; since about 1998, males have come to predominate in new flows.
The reason for this, Kyambi (2005) suggests, may be due to a general
shift away from more female oriented family migration to more male
dominated work-based migration schemes since 1995. It is likely also
related to the inflow of asylum-seekers, most of whom have been male.
There is considerable variation of gender structures among different
groups, and this mostly relates to channels of migration and the
evolution of migration systems from particular countries of origin. For
instance, 80 per cent of Slovakians, 72 per cent of Czechs, 71 per cent
of Filipinos, 70 per cent of Slovenes, 68 per cent of Thais and 67 per
cent of Madagascars are women (GLA 2005a, p. 89). They are mostly
to be found in domestic or health services. Meanwhile, 71 per cent of
Algerians, 63 per cent of Nepalese, 61 per cent of Kosovars, 61 per cent
of Afghans, 60 per cent of Yemenis and 60 per cent of Albanians are
males, almost all of whom are asylum-seekers (Ibid., p. 90).
Among migrants in London generally, women migrants have a far
lower employment rate (56 per cent) than men (75 per cent).
Employment rates are especially low for women born in South Asia
(37 per cent) and the Middle East and North Africa (39 per cent)
(GLA 2005b, p. 2). Indeed many basic features of super-diversity Á
especially the inter-related patterns surrounding immigrants’ country
of origin, channels of migration, employment, legal status and rights Á
tend to have highly gendered patterns (cf. Kofman et al. 2005).
1040 Steven Vertovec
Age
The new immigrant population has a higher concentration of 25Á44
year olds and a lower proportion of under-16s than a decade ago, also
perhaps reflecting a shift away from family migration (Kyambi 2005).
Variance in age structure among various ethnic groups reflects different
patterns of fertility and mortality as well as migration (GLA 2005a,
p. 6). The mean age of new immigrants is 28 Á averaging eleven years
younger than the mean age of 39 for the British Isles born population.
There is a considerable amount of diversity in the proportion of the
new immigrant population being in the age group 25Á44, which we
have considered to be a primary working age. While Cyprus
(31.03%), Hong Kong (32.65%), Somalia (37.26%), Germany
(37.85%), Norway (38.18%) and Albania (38.56%) have the smallest
fraction of their population falling within this age group, they are
counterbalanced by Algeria (78.24%), Philippines (74.49%), New
Zealand (73.92%), and Italy (70.24%) with the greatest proportions
being 25Á44 years old (Kyambi 2005, p. 133).
Space/place
New immigrants often settle in areas with established immigrant
communities from the same country of birth. Pointing to this fact,
and by way of recognizing the boom in migrant-derived diversity, in
2005 the Guardian newspaper published a special section called
‘London: the world in one city’ which described and mapped one
hundred places and specific groups within ‘the most diverse city ever’
(Benedictus and Godwin 2005). Another was published in January 2006
called ‘The world in one country’, repeating the exercise on a national
scale. These special sections were revealing and celebratory, but were in
many ways misleading.
The Greater London Authority’s analysis of the 2001 Census shows
that there are only a few common country of origin populations that
are highly concentrated in the capital Á namely Bangladeshis in Tower
Hamlets (where 42 per cent of the capital’s 35,820 Bangladeshis live),
people from Sierra Leone living in Southwark (26 per cent of 3,647),
Cypriots in Enfield (26 per cent of 11,802), Afghanis in Ealing (23 per
cent of 2,459) and Turks in Haringey (22 per cent of 8,589). The report
points out that ‘although there are areas which have come to be
associated with particular migrants, nearly all migrant groups tend to
live in a number of different boroughs’ (GLA 2005a, p. 88).
Therefore, while the Guardian wished to highlight the cosmopolitan
nature of contemporary London and Britain, it made a mistake in
Super-diversity & its implications 1041
suggesting certain groups are fixed to certain places. Instead, as implied
by the GLA analysis and stressed by Geraldine Pratt (1998, p. 27),
there is deep suspicion about mapping cultures onto places, because
multiple cultures and identities inevitably inhabit a single place
(think of multiple identities performed under the roof of a family
house) and a single cultural identity is often situated in multiple,
interconnected spaces.
London is the predominant locus of immigration and it is where
super-diversity is at its most marked. But, following Kyambi (2005), we
should note that increased diversification (of countries of origin,
immigrant categories, etc.) are not a matter of increased numbers but
relative change in a given locality. A city or neighbourhood may have
small numbers of new migrants but relatively high indices of diversity
(cf. Allen and Turner 1989). In terms of numbers of new migrants
London still shows the highest degree of relative change, but significant
trends are also to be found in the South East, West Midlands, East of
England, North West, and Yorkshire and Humberside (Kyambi 2005).
A ‘diversity index’recently created by the Office for National Statistics Á
based on the probability of two persons selected at random belonging to
different ethnic groups Á also shows a high ethnic mix outside as well as
within London (Large and Ghosh 2006).
One major avenue by which newcomers have come to places of
previously low immigrant density has been through government
dispersal. In order to relieve pressure on councils in London and the
south-east of England, since 2000 the National Asylum Support Service
[NASS] has made considerable effort to disperse people seeking asylum.
By its peak in 2003 the dispersal system had spread 54,000 asylumseekers
to seventy-seven local authorities across Britain, including
several in Yorkshire (18 per cent), the West Midlands (18 per cent), the
north-west (18 per cent) and Scotland (11 per cent).
New immigrants with less established networks and patterns of
settlement are currently being drawn to locations with a wider range of
employment opportunities Á principally to London but also to small
towns and mid-sized cities (for instance to work in construction),
coastal and other leisure-centred localities (where they might engage in
hospitality and catering services) and rural areas (usually for shortterm
jobs in agriculture and food processing).
Transnationalism
Perhaps throughout history, and certainly over the last hundred years or
more, immigrants have stayed in contact with families, organizations
and communities in their places of origin and elsewhere in the diaspora
1042 Steven Vertovec
(Foner 1997; Glick-Schiller 1999; Morawska 1999). In recent years, the
extent and degree of transnational engagement has intensified due in
large part to changing technologies and reduced telecommunication
and travel costs. Enhanced transnationalism is substantially transforming
several social, political and economic structures and practices
among migrant communities worldwide (Vertovec 2004a).
The ‘new immigrants’ who have come to live in Britain over the past
ten years have done so during a period of increasingly normative
transnationalism (cf. Portes et al. 1999). Today in Britain, cross-border
or indeed global patterns of sustained communication, institutional
linkage and exchange of resources among migrants, homelands and
wider diasporas are commonplace (see for example Anderson 2001,
Al-Ali et al. 2001, Spellman 2004, Zontini 2004). This can be observed
in the increasing value of remittances sent from Britain (now estimated
at up to £3.5 billion per year; Blackwell and Seddon 2004), the growing
volume of international phone calls between the UK and various
places of migrant origin (Vertovec 2004b), the frequency of transnational
marriage practices and the extent of engagement by various
UK-based diasporas in the development of their respective homelands
(Van Hear et al. 2004).
The degrees to and ways in which today’s migrants maintain
identities, activities and connections linking them with communities
outside Britain are unprecedented. Of course, not all migrants
maintain the same level of kinds of transnational engagement: much
of this will be largely conditioned by a range of factors including
migration channel and legal status (e.g. refugees or undocumented
persons may find it harder to maintain certain ties abroad), migration
and settlement history, community structure and gendered patterns of
contact, political circumstances in the homeland, economic means and
more. That is, transnational practices among immigrants in Britain are
highly diverse between and within groups (whether defined by country
of origin, ethnicity, immigration category or any other criteria), adding
yet another significant layer of complexity to all those outlined above.
The ‘new immigration’ and its outcomes in Britain have entailed the
arrival and interplay of multifaceted characteristics and conditions
among migrants. This has resulted in a contemporary situation of
‘super-diversity’. Compared to the large-scale immigration of the 1950searly
1970s, the 1990s-early 2000s have seen more migrants from more
places entailing more socio-cultural differences going through more
migration channels leading to more, as well as more significantly
stratified, legal categories (which themselves have acted to internally
diversify various groups), and who maintain more intensely an array of
links with places of origin and diasporas elsewhere. Super-diversity is
now all around the UK, and particularly in London. It has not brought
Super-diversity & its implications 1043
with it particular problems or conflicts, but it certainly presents some
challenges to policy-makers and social scientists alike.
Super-diversity: Social scientific challenges
The theories and methods that social scientists use to study immigrants
still owe much to the Chicago school of urban studies set out in
the early and mid-part of the last century (Waters and Jime´nez 2005).
This primarily entails looking comparatively at processes of assimilation
among particular, ethnically-defined groups measured in terms of
changing socio-economic status, spatial concentration/segregation,
linguistic change and intermarriage.
In many places and times, specific immigrant or ethnic minorities
have largely shared such sets of traits, so that analysing a group at
large has indeed demonstrated many significant trends. Elsewhere,
however, the array of traits akin to super-diversity has obfuscated
attempts to discern a clear comparison or relation between groups. For
instance, Janet Abu-Lughod (1999, p. 417) describes how,
In New York, a city long accustomed to an ethnic ‘poker game’ in
which no single group commands most of the chips and where the
politically federated system provides numerous entry points, albeit
not equally advantageous, the sheer diversity of subgroups Á both
old-timers and new immigrants, and the criss-crossing of pigmentation,
immigrant/citizen status, and religious identities by class and
residence Á has tended to mute the polarities found along languagedescent
lines in Los Angeles and along the colour line in Chicago.
John Mollenkopf and Manuel Castells (1991, p. 402), too, have
highlighted in New York City the existence of social dynamics marked
by ‘an articulate core and a disarticulated plurality of peripheries’
differentiated by variable conglomerations of race, immigration status,
gender, economic activity and neighbourhood. Such observations point
towards the need to go beyond studies of socio-economic mobility,
segregation and such based on ethnic or immigrant classification alone.
There have indeed been inquiries into how best to gauge diversity in
ethnic terms, but also with respect to variables such as age, income and
occupational types (e.g., Allen and Turner 1989) or how adequately to
derive and evaluate measures of multi-group segregation (e.g., Reardon
and Firebaugh 2002). The development of quantitative techniques
for multivariate analysis surely have much to offer the study of superdiversity,
particularly by way of understanding the interaction of
variables such as country of origin, ethnicity, language, immigration
status (and its concomitant rights, benefits and restrictions), age,
gender, education, occupation and locality.
1044 Steven Vertovec
Yet there is also much need for more and better qualitative studies of
super-diversity. Not least, such a need arises from the Cantle Report
into the 2001 riots in Oldham (Home Office 2001; also see Home
Office 2004). The Report painted a now infamous picture of groups
living ‘parallel lives’ that do not touch or overlap by way of meaningful
interchanges. But social scientists, to say nothing of civil servants, have
few accounts of what meaningful interchanges look like, how they are
formed, maintained or broken, and how the state or other agencies
might promote them.
‘There are plenty of neighbourhoods,’ writes Ash Amin (2002, p.
960), ‘in which multi-ethnicity has not resulted in social breakdown, so
ethnic mixture itself does not offer a compelling explanation for
failure.’ In order to foster a better understanding of dynamics and
potentials, Amin calls for an anthropology of ‘local micropolitics of
everyday interaction’ akin to what Leonie Sandercock (2003, p. 89)
sees as ‘daily habits of perhaps quite banal intercultural interaction’.
Such interaction, again, should be looked at in terms of the multiple
variables mentioned above, not just in basic ethnic categories.
Social scientific investigation of the conditions and challenges of
super-diversity will throw up a wide variety of material and insights
with theoretical bearing. For example, these could include contributions
towards a better understanding of some of the following areas.
New patterns of inequality and prejudice. The ‘new immigration’
since the early 1990s has brought with it emergent forms of racism: (a)
among resident British targeted against newcomers Á who may be
specifically seen as East Europeans, Gypsies, Somalis, Kosovans,
‘bogus asylum-seekers’, or other constructed categories of otherness;
(b) among longstanding ethnic minorities against immigrants; and (c)
among newcomers themselves, directed against British ethnic minorities.
The new immigration and super-diversity have also stimulated
new definitions of ‘whiteness’ surrounding certain groups of newcomers
(cf. Keith 2005, p. 177).
New patterns of segregation. Several new immigrants have, as in
waves before them, clustered in specific urban areas; others are far
more dispersed by choice, by employers or by the NASS dispersal
system. While some statistical mapping of new immigrant distribution
and concentration has been done (e.g. Kyambi 2005), much remains to
be studied in terms of detailed patterns of segregation, housing
experiences and residential opportunities.
New experiences of space and ‘contact’. There is a school of thought
in social psychology that suggests regular contact between groups may
mutually reduce prejudice and increase respect (cf. Hewstone and
Brown 1886). Yet ‘Habitual contact in itself is no guarantor of cultural
exchange’ (Amin 2002, p. 969). Indeed, regular contact can entrench
group animosities, fears and competition. More research is needed
Super-diversity & its implications 1045
here to test these hypotheses and to identify key forms of space
and contact that might yield positive benefits. Further, as Jane Jacobs
and Ruth Fincher (1998) advocate, in many cases we need to consider
the local development of ‘a complex entanglement between identity,
power and place’ which they call a ‘located politics of difference’. This
entails examining how people define their differences in relationship to
uneven material and spatial conditions.
New forms of cosmopolitanism and creolisation. The enlarged
presence and everyday interaction of people from all over the world
provides opportunities for the development of research and theory
surrounding multiple cultural competences (Vertovec and Rogers
1995), new cosmopolitan orientations and attitudes (Vertovec and
Cohen 2003), creole languages (Harris and Rampton 2002), practices
of ‘crossing’ or code-switching, particularly among young people
(Rampton 2005) and the emergence of new ethnicities characterised by
multi-lingualism (Harris 2003).
New ‘bridgeheads’ of migration. As noted earlier, many of the groups
which have come to Britain in the past decade originate from places
with few prior links to this country. For example, how did Frenchspeaking
Algerians or Congolese start coming to the UK (Collyer
2003)? We could learn much about contemporary global migration
processes by looking at how migration channels and networks have
been newly formed and developed.
Secondary migration patterns. It is now commonplace for migrants
to arrive in the UK after spending periods in other, usually EU,
countries; this is particularly the case with people granted refugee
status such as Somalis from the Netherlands or Denmark. Again,
research on such migration systems can tell us much about the current
transformation of migration systems.
Transnationalism and integration. While much academic work has
been devoted to these two topics over the past decade, there has been
much less attention on their relationship. Many policy-makers and
members of the public assume a zero-sum game: that is, it is presumed
the ‘more transnational’ migrants are, the ‘less integrated’ they must
be. Such an assumption is likely false, but needs to be contested with
more research evidence (akin to Snel et al. 2006) as well as theoretical
reflection (like that undertaken by Kivisto 2005).
Methodological innovation. Research on super-diversity could encourage
new techniques in quantitatively testing the relation between
multiple variables and in qualitatively undertaking ethnographic
exercises that are multi-sited (considering different localities and
spaces within a given locality) and multi-group (defined in terms of
the variable convergence of ethnicity, status, gender and other criteria
of super-diversity). Much value would also doubtless come from the
application of a revitalized situational approach Á pioneered by Max
1046 Steven Vertovec
Gluckman (1958) and J. Clyde Mitchell (1956) Á in which a set of
interactions are observed and an analysis ‘works outward’ to take
account of not only the meaning of interactions to participants
themselves, but also the encompassing criteria and structures impacting
upon the positions, perceptions and practices of these actors (cf.
Rogers and Vertovec 1995).
Research-policy nexus. Social scientists are not very good at
translating data and analysis of complexities into forms that can
have an impact on policies and public practices. Research on superdiversity
will provide this opportunity, especially at a time when
policy-makers are eager to gain a better understanding of ‘integration’
and ‘social cohesion’. Indeed, as outlined below, there is a range of
policy issues raised or addressed by conditions of super-diversity.
Super-diversity: Policy challenges
At both national and local levels, policy-makers and public service
practitioners continuously face the task of refashioning their tools in
the order to be most effective in the light of changing circumstances
(whether these are socio-economic, budgetary, or set by government
strategy). This is equally the case surrounding policies for community
cohesion, integration, managed migration and ‘managed settlement’
(Home Office 2004). The following section points to just a handful of
possible issues in which super-diversity impacts on the current
development of public policies and practices.
Community organizations. Structures and modes of government
support for, and liaison with, ethnic minority organizations have for
decades formed the backbone of the British model of multiculturalism.
Especially on local levels, these have indeed often provided important
forums for sharing experiences and needs, establishing good practices
and providing access to services. However, in the light of the numerous
dimensions of super-diversity, such structures and modes are inadequate
for effective representation. Most local authorities have been
used to liaising with a limited number of large and well-organized
associations; now there are far more numbers in smaller, less (or not at
all) organized groups. In any case, just how many groups could such
structures support? And how should local authorities account for the
internal diversity of various groups, not least in terms of legal status?
Already, existing minority ethnic agencies often cannot respond to the
needs of the various newcomers.
It can take years to develop effective community organizations which
can deliver services and impact on local decision-making. ‘Meanwhile,
new immigrant populations are effectively ‘‘squeezed out’’ of local
representative structures and consequently wield little power or
influence’ (Robinson and Reeve 2005, p. 35). Also, as Roger Zetter
Super-diversity & its implications 1047
and colleagues (2005, p. 14) point out, ‘In the present climate of
immigration policy, there are good reasons why minorities may wish to
remain invisible to outsiders and resist forming themselves into explicit
organisational structures.’ None of this is to say that community
organizations no longer have a place in bridging migrant groups and
local authorities or service providers. Such bodies remain crucial to the
process, but should be recognized as only partially relevant with regard
to their representativeness and scope.
Public service delivery. The growing size and complexity of the
immigrant population carrieswith it a range of significant public service
implications. Executives in local authorities around Britain have voiced
concerns about the ability of transport systems, schools and health
services to manage new neeeds (Johnston 2006), while a leaked Home
Office document reveals that government departments have been
ordered to draw up emergency plans to deal with potential increased
demands on public services (Tempest 2006). Such concerns flag up a
substantial shift in strategies across a range of service sectors concerning
theassessmentofneeds,planning,budgeting,commissioningofservices,
identification of partners for collaboration and gaining a broader
appreciation of diverse experiences in order generally to inform debate.
Such a shift must begin with gathering basic information on the new
diversity, since ‘being able to identify new minority ethnic groups is a
key factor in distributing resources’ (Mennell 2000, p. 82). Existing
measures are inadequate and may even impair service delivery. As one
health expert puts it, ‘the ten census categories for ethnicity do not
reflect the diversity of communities in this country, and mask the
differences of their health needs’ (Pui-Ling 2000, p. 83).
A comprehensive examination of super-diversity’s impacts on public
services is well beyond the scope of this article and capability of this
author. It seems evident, however, that most areas of service provision
have not caught up with the transformations brought about by the new
immigration of the last decade. In one well-informed overview of
current institutions, for instance, Anja Rudiger (2006, p. 8) concludes
that ‘Despite statutory provisions, there is little evidence to date that
local authorities are in a position to identify how targets relating to
service delivery and economic development intersect with the
dynamics of diverse community relationships and networks.’
In order to avoid the conventional trap of addressing newcomers just
in terms of some presumably fixed ethnic identity, an awareness of the
new super-diversity suggests that policy-makers and practitioners
should take account of new immigrants’ ‘plurality of affiliations’
(recognizing multiple identifications and axes of differentiation, only
some of which concern ethnicity), ‘the coexistence of cohesion and
separateness’ (especially when one bears in mind a stratification of
rights and benefits around immigrant categories), and Á in the light of
1048 Steven Vertovec
enhanced transnational practices Á the fact that ‘migrant communities,
just as the settled population, can ‘‘cohere’’ to different social worlds
and communities simultaneously’ (Zetter et al. 2005, pp. 14, 19).
Conclusion
Described here as ‘super-diversity’, features of Britain’s contemporary
social condition arise from the differential convergence of factors
surrounding patterns of immigration since the early 1990s. The
experiences, opportunities, constraints and trajectories facing newcomers
Á and the wider set of social and economic relations within the
places where they reside Á are shaped by complex interplays.
To recap, these factors include: country of origin (comprising a
variety of possible subset traits such as ethnicity, language[s], religious
tradition, regional and local identities, cultural values and practices),
migration channel (often related to highly gendered flows and specific
social networks), legal status (determining entitlement to rights),
migrants’ human capital (particularly educational background), access
to employment (which may or may not be in immigrants’ hands),
locality (related especially to material conditions, but also the nature
and extent of other immigrant and ethnic minority presence),
transnationalism (emphasizing how migrants’ lives are lived with
significant reference to places and peoples elsewhere) and the usually
chequered responses by local authorities, services providers and local
residents (which often tend to function by way of assumptions based
on previous experiences with migrants and ethnic minorities). Fresh
and novel ways of understanding and responding to such complex
interplays must be fashioned if we are to move beyond the frameworks
derived from an earlier, significantly different, social formation.
A range of existing frameworks, including those which focus on
ethnicity as the predominant or even sole criterion marking social
processes, should be reshaped and extended. The conventional focus on
ethnicity shapes, and may obscure, understanding of ‘the diversity of
migrants’relationships to their place of settlement and to other localities
around the world’ (Glick Schiller et al. 2006, p. 613). A similar
conclusion was recently made by Fong and Shibuya (2005, p. 299),
who stress that contemporary configurations ‘require social scientists to
go beyond existing theoretical frameworks and methodology to explore
the complexity of the multiethic (sic) group context.’ Methodologically
addressing and theoretically analysing processes and effects of superdiversity
should stimulate social scientists to creatively consider the
interaction of multiple axes of differentiation. This will also help us,
thereby, to answer the critical questions posed by Jacobs and Fincher
(1998, p. 9), namely: ‘How does one speak (and write) about such
multiply constituted and locationally contingent notions of difference?
Super-diversity & its implications 1049
What are the pertinent dimensions along which different identities are
expressed or represented?’
For policy-makers and practitioners in local government, NGOs and
social service departments, appreciating dimensions and dynamics of
super-diversity has profound implications for how they might understand
and deal with modes of difference and their interactionswithin the
socio-economic and legal circumstances affecting members of the
population. Discovering and acknowledging the nature and extent of
diversity is a crucial first step in the development of adequate policies on
both national and local levels. Here social scientific research and
analysis can provide many of the key points of information and insight.
Ultimately, however, policy responses to diversification rest on
political will and vision. As Leonie Sandercock (2003, p. 104) suggests,
‘the good society does not commit itself to a particular vision of the
good life and then ask how much diversity it can tolerate within the
limits set by this vision. To do so would be to foreclose future societal
development.’ The future, immediate and long-term, will inherently
be typified by diversity issues: indeed, Keith (2005, p. 1) emphasizes,
‘the cities of the 21st
century will increasingly be characterized by the
challenges of multiculturalism.’ It is here further suggested that such
challenges will be marked and conditioned by the kind of factors and
issues encapsulated in this article by the notion of ‘super-diversity’.
Although perhaps rather glib, the concept of super-diversity points
to the necessity of considering multi-dimensional conditions and
processes affecting immigrants in contemporary society. Its recognition
will hopefully lead to public policies better suited to the needs and
conditions of immigrants, ethnic minorities and the wider population
of which they are inherently part.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to numerous colleagues for their generous and critical
feedback surrounding the ideas and material in this article (although
of course any remaining flaws are mine alone). These particularly
include Robin Cohen, Alisdair Rogers, Susanne Wessendorf, Andreas
Wimmer, Gerd Baumann, Danny Sriskandarajah, Sarah Kyambi, Dan
Hiebert, David Ley and the staff and students of the ESRC Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford
Á where I also appreciate Alessio Cangiano’s help with data. A joint
fellowship from the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) and
Social Science Research Council (USA) also importantly supported
this work. Finally, for a range of helpful responses, I wish to thank
participants in seminars at Harvard University and the University of
British Columbia, and at conferences of the Swedish Anthropological
Association and European Association of Social Anthropologists.
1050 Steven Vertovec
References
ABU-LUGHOD, J.L. 1999 New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s Global Cities,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
ACKROYD, P. 2000 London: The Biography, London: Vintage
AL-ALI, N., BLACK, R. and KOSER, K. 2001 ‘Refugees and transnationalism: the
experience of Bosnians and Eritreans in Europe’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 615Á34
ALLEN, J.P. and TURNER, E. 1989 ‘The most ethnically diverse urban places in the United
States,’ Urban Geography, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 523Á39
AMIN, A. 2002 ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity’, Environment and
Planning A, vol. 34, pp. 959Á80
ANDERSON, B. 2001 ‘Different roots in common ground: Transnationalism and migrant
domestic workers in London’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
673Á83
**** and RUHS, M. 2005 ‘What’s in a name? Exploring immigration status and
compliance,’ Paper given at ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS)
Annual Conference, Oxford
ARAI, L. 2006 Migrants & Public Services in the UK: A review of the recent literature,
Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS)
BAKER, P. and MOHIELDEEN, Y. 2000 ‘The languages of London’s schoolchildren’, in
P. Baker and J. Eversley (eds), Multilingual Capital, London: Battlebridge, pp. 5Á60
BARTH, F. 1989 ‘The analysis of culture in complex societies,’ Ethnos, vol. 54, pp. 120Á42
**** 1993 Balinese Worlds, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
BENEDICTUS, L. and GODWIN, M. 2005 ‘Every race, colour, nation and religion on
earth,’ Guardian 21 January
BERKELEY, R., KHAN, O. and AMBIKAIPAKER, M. 2005 ‘What is new about the new
immigrants in 21st
Century Britain?,’ Report, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
BLACKWELL, M. and SEDDON, D. 2004 ‘Informal remittances from the UK: Values,
flows and mechanisms,’ Norwich: Overseas Development Group report to the Department
for International Development
CASTLES, S., CRAWLEY, H. and LOUGHNA, S. 2003 States of Conflict, London:
Institute for Public Policy Research
CLARKE, J. and SALT, J. 2003 ‘Work permits and foreign labour in the UK: A statistical
review,’ Labour Market Trends, vol. 111 no. 11, pp. 563Á74, London: HMSO
COLLYER, M. 2003 ‘Explaining change in established migration systems: The movement of
Algerians to France and the UK,’ Brighton: Sussex Migration Working Paper no. 16
FONER, N. 1997 ‘What’s new about transnationalism? New York immigrants today and at
the turn of the century,’ Diaspora, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 355Á75
FONG, E. and SHIBUYA, K. 2005 ‘Multiethnic cities in North America’, Annual Review of
Sociology, vol. 31, pp. 285Á304
FREEDLAND, J. 2005 ‘The world in one city,’ Guardian 15 July
GLICK-SCHILLER, N. 1999 ‘Transmigrants and Nation-States: Something Old and
Something New in U.S. Immigrant Experience’, in Handbook of International Migration,
C. Hirschman, Josh DeWind, and P. Kasinitz (eds) New York: Russell Sage, pp. 94Á119
****, CAGLAR, A. and GULDBRANDSEN, T.C. 2006 ‘Beyond the ethnic lens:
locality, globality, and born-again incorporation,’ American Ethnologist, vol. 33, no. 4, pp.
612Á33
GLA [Greater London Authority] 2005a London Á The World in a City: An analysis of the
2001 Census results, London: Greater London Authority Data Management and Analysis
Group Briefing 2005/6
GLA [Greater London Authority] 2005b Country of Birth and Labour Market Outcomes in
London: An analysis of Labour Force Survey and Census data, London: Greater London
Authority Data Management and Analysis Group Briefing 2005/1
Super-diversity & its implications 1051
GLUCKMAN, MAX 1958 ‘Analysis of a social situation in modern Zululand,’ RhodesLivingston
Papers No. 28, Manchester University Press
HANNERZ, U. 1992 Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning,
New York: Columbia University Press
HANSEN, R. and WEIL, P. 2001 Towards a European Nationality: Citizenship, Immigration
and Nationality Law in the EU, New York: Palgrave
HARRIS, R. 2003 ‘Language and new ethnicities: Multilingual youth and diaspora,’
London: King’s College Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies no. 22
**** and RAMPTON, BEN 2002 ‘Creole metaphors in cultural analysis: On the limits
and possibilities of (socio-)linguistics,’ Critique of Anthropology, vol. 22, pp. 31Á51
HARZIG, C. and JUTEAU, D. 2003 ‘Introduction: Recasting Canadian and European
history in a pluralist perspective’, in C. Harzig and D. Juteau (eds), The Social Construction
of Diversity, Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 1Á12
HATTON, T. 2003 ‘Explaining trends in UK Immigration,’ London: Centre for Economic
Policy Research, CEPR Discussion Papers 4019
HEWSTONE, M. and BROWN, R. (eds) (1886) Contact and Conflict in Intergroup
Encounters, Oxford: Blackwell
HOLLINGER, D. 1995 Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism, New York: Basic
Books
HOLMES, C. 1997 ‘Cosmopolitan London’, in A.J. Kershen (ed.), London: The Promised
Land?, Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 10Á37
HOME OFFICE 2001 Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team
(aka the Cantle Report), London: Home Office
**** 2004 The End of Parallel Lives? The Report of the Community Cohesion Panel,
London: Home Office
**** 2005 ‘An exploration of factors affecting the successful dispersal of asylum seekers,’
London: Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Online Report 50/05
JACOBS, J.M. and FINCHER, R. 1998 ‘Introduction’, in R. Fincher and J.M. Jacobs (eds),
Cities of Difference, New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 1Á25
JCWI (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) 2004 Immigration, Nationality and
Refugee Law Handbook, London: Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
JOHNSTON, P. 2006 ‘Immigrants ‘‘swamping’’ council services’, Daily Telegraph 26 June
KACZMARCZYK, P. and OKO´ LSKI, M. 2005 International Migration in Central and
Eastern Europe: Current and Future Trends, New York: United Nations Population Division
UN/POP/MIG/2005/12
KEITH, M. 2005 After the Cosmopolitan? Multicultural Cities and the Future of Racism,
London: Routledge
KIVISTO, P. 2005 ‘Social spaces, transnational immigrant communities, and the politics of
incorporation’, in P. Kivisto (ed.), Incorporating Diversity, Boulder: Paradigm, pp. 299Á319
KOFMAN, E. 1998 ‘Whose city? Gender, class, and immigrants in globalizing European
cities’, in R. Fincher and J.M. Jacobs (eds), Cities of Difference, New York: The Guilford
Press, pp. 279Á300
**** 2004 ‘Family-related migration: A critical review of European studies,’ Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 243Á62
**** P. TAGHURAM and MEREFIELD, M. 2005 ‘Gendered Migrations: Towards
gender sensitive policies in the UK,’ London: Institute for Public Policy Research, Asylum
and Migration Working Paper 6
KUPER, L. and SMITH, M.G. (eds) 1969 Pluralism in Africa, Berkeley: University of
California Press
KYAMBI, S. 2005 New Immigrant Communities: New Integration Challenges?, London:
Institute for Public Policy Research
LAMPHERE, L. (ed.) 1992 Structuring Diversity: Ethnographic Perspectives on the New
Immigration, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
1052 Steven Vertovec
LARGE, P. and GHOSH, K. 2006 ‘Estimates of the population by ethnic group for areas
within England,’ Office for National Statistics Population Trends 124
LEWIS, P. 2002 Islamic Britain: Religion, Politics and Identity among British Muslims
London: I.B. Tauris, 2nd edn
MARTINIELLO, M. 2004 ‘How to combine integration and diversities: The challenge of an
EU multicultural citizenship’, Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia, Discussion Paper
MASSEY, D.S. and DENTON, N.A. 1989 ‘Hypersegregation in U.S. metropolitan areas:
Black and Hispanic segregation along five dimensions,’ Demography, vol. 26, no. 3, pp.
373Á91
MENNELL, J. 2000 ‘Ethnic and linguistic diversity: The impact on local authority
expenditure’, in P. Baker and J. Eversley (eds), Multilingual Capital, London: Battlebridge,
pp. 81Á82
MITCHELL, J.C. 1956 ‘The Kalela dance,’ Rhodes-Livingston Papers No. 27, Manchester
University Press
MOLLENKOPF, J. and CASTELLS, M. 1991 ‘Conclusion: Is New York a dual city?,’ in
J. Mollenkopf and M. Castells (eds), Dual City: Restructuring New York, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation, pp. 399Á418
MORAWSKA, E. 1999 ‘The new-old transmigrants, their transnational lives, and
ethnicization: A comparison of 19th
/20th
and 20th
/21st
C situations’, Florence: European
University Institute Working Papers EUF No. 99/2
MORRIS, LYDIA 2002 Managed Migration: Civic Stratification and Rights, London:
Routledge
**** 2004 ‘The control of rights: The rights of workers and asylum-seekers under
managed migration,’ London: Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Discussion Paper
OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) 2003 The education of asylum-seeker pupils,
Report HMI 453
PARSONS, G. 1994 The Growth of Religious Diversity: Britain from 1945, London:
Routledge, 2 vols
PEACH, C. 2005 ‘The United Kingdom: A major transformation of the religious landscape’,
in H. Knippenberg (ed.), The Religious Landscape of Europe, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, pp.
44Á58
PINKERTON, C., MCLAUGHLAN, G. and SALT, J. 2004 ‘Sizing the illegally resident
population in the UK,’ London: Home Office Online Report 58/04
PORTES, A., GUARNIZO, L.E. and LANDOLT, P. 1999 ‘The study of transnationalism:
pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 22, no.2,
pp. 217Á37
PRATT, G. 1998 ‘Grids of difference: Place and identity formation’, in R. Fincher and
J. M. Jacobs (eds), Cities of Difference, New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 26Á48
PUI-LING LI, 2000 ‘An indicator for health needs of minority ethnic communities in the
capital’, in P. Baker and J. Eversley (eds), Multilingual Capital, London: Battlebridge, p. 83
RAMPTON, B. 2005 Crossing: Language & Ethnicity among Adolescents, Manchester:
St Jerome Press, 2nd edn
RAMPTON, B., HARRIS, R. and LEUNG, C. 1997 ‘Multilingualism in England’, Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 17, pp. 224Á41
REARDON, S.F. and FIREBAUGH, G. 2002 ‘Measures of multigroup segregation’,
Sociological Methodology, vol. 23, pp. 33Á67
ROBINSON, D. and REEVE, K. 2005 ‘The Experiences and Consequences of New
Immigration at the Neighbourhood Level: Reflections from the evidence base’, Project
Report, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
ROGERS, A. and VERTOVEC, S. (eds) 1995 The Urban Context: Ethnicity, Social
Networks, and Situational Analysis, Oxford: Berg
Super-diversity & its implications 1053
RUDIGER, A. 2006 ‘Integration of new migrants: Community relations,’ in New Migrants
and Refugees, S. Spencer (ed.) Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society
(COMPAS), Report prepared for Home Office
SALT, J. 2004 International Migration and the United Kingdom: Report of the United Kingdom
SOPEMI Correspondent to the OECD 2004, London: Migration Research Unit, University
College London
SANDERCOCK, L. 2003 Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities of the 21st
Century, London:
Continuum
SANJEK, R. 1998 The Future of Us All: Race and Neighborhood Politics in New York City,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press
SNEL, E., ENGBERSEN, G. and LEEKRES, A. 2006 ‘Transnational involvement and
social integration,’ Global Networks, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 285Á308
SPELLMAN, K. 2004 Religion and Nation: Iranian Local and Transnational Networks in
Britain, Oxford: Berghahn
SRISKANDARAJAH, D. et al. 2004 Labour Migration to the UK: an ippr factfile, London:
Institute for Public Policy Research
STATT, D. 1995 Foreigners and Englishmen: The Controversy over Immigration and
Population, 1660Á1760, Newark: University of Delaware Press
TEMPEST, M. 2006 ‘New EU migrants may put pressure on public services, says report’,
Guardian 31 July
UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) 2005 2004 Global Refugee
Trends, Geneva: UNHCR
VAN HEAR, N., PIEKE, F. and VERTOVEC, S. 2004 ‘The contribution of UK-based
diasporas to development and poverty reduction’, Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration,
Policy and Society (COMPAS) Report to the Department for International Development
VERTOVEC, S. 2004a ‘Migrant transnationalism and modes of transformation’, International
Migration Review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 970Á1001
**** 2004b ‘Cheap Calls: the social glue of migrant transnationalism,’ Global Networks,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 219Á24
**** and ALISDAIR ROGERS 1995 ‘Introduction’, in Muslim European Youth,
S. Vertovec and A. Rogers (eds) Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1Á24
**** and ROBIN COHEN 2003 ‘Introduction: Conceiving cosmopolitanism’, in
S. Vertovec and R. Cohen (eds) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 1Á22
WATERS, M. and JIME´ NEZ, T.R. 2005 ‘Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical
and theoretical challenges’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 31, pp. 105Á25
ZETTER, R., GRIFFITHS, D., SIGONA, N., FLYNN, D., PASHA, T. and BEYNON, R.
2005 ‘Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: What are the links?’, Concepts Paper,
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
ZONTINI, E. 2004 ‘Italian families and social capital: Rituals and the provision of care in
British-Italian transnational families’, London: ESRC Research Group on Families & Social
Capital Working Paper no. 6
STEVEN VERTOVEC is Professor of Transnational Anthropology at
the University of Oxford and Director of the ESRC Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS).
ADDRESS: COMPAS, University of Oxford, 58 Banbury Road,
Oxford OX2 6QS, UK. Email: Bsteven.vertovec@compas.ox.ac.uk
1054 Steven Vertovec